§ 54. Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that one of the largest makers of patent food products, employing a considerable number of hands, who are large consumers of sodium pyrophosphate (cream of tartar substitute), a product scheduled in the key list under Part I of the Safeguarding of industries Act, 1921, are unable to meet competition for export business of foreign makers of similar products who obtain this raw material free of any duty, and is also handicapped in the home market by competitive firms consuming cream of tartar, a similar product which 978 has been taken out of the key list by order of the referee, and in consequence have had to curtail their output and discharge a large number of workmen; and, if so, how much longer is it intended to levy duty on the imports of sodium pyrophosphate and hundreds of other articles which, on the referee's rulings on points of principle, are clearly outside the scope of Part I of the Act?
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMENo representations have been made to me that the action taken by the Board of Trade on the decision of the referee in the case mentioned has had any effect on the export trade of any company, or has curtailed output and caused unemployment. As regards the last part of the question, I am not aware of any decisions of the referee which would warrant the assumption made by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. KILEYDoes the hon. Gentleman realise that if this commodity be imported in its raw Form, there is no duty payable, hut that if the manufacturer import this dutiable article, he pays a duty on it?
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEThe hon. Member is always ready to persuade the House on an argument based on a hypothesis; I prefer to rely on hard facts.